A collection of 14 scientists qualified in weather analysis, say that there
is no science behind global warming.

PROF. RICHARD
LINDZEN (Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Boston, USA):
"The notion that
a warming is catastrophic is drilled into people, to the point where it seems
surprising that anyone would question it, and yet underlying it is very little
evidence at all. In fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary."

Commissions of Enquiry (supposedly independent) and
Terms of Reference-

"My [Timothy Ball's] experience having
chaired commissions of enquiry for government or being on commissions of
enquiry for government, is that there are certain things politicians love,
enquiries being one of them, deficits are another. ... If there's a
problem or a conflict develops and its causing a lot of difficulty for the
politicians, they can say "we will appoint a commission of enquiry,
it will be independent", and that takes the heat off the issue.
("Oh yeah, the government is reacting, they're finally appointing a
commission of enquiry" and if they don't then "Oh you're afraid,
you're hiding something").OK, so they appoint a commission of
enquiry but then, what people don't realise, is they control the outcome
of that commission of enquiry. Now first of all they've got the
advantage now, because if the media comes and asks what's going on,
"Can't talk about it, have to wait for the commission of
enquiry."

"What people don't realise is that a lot of the outcome is controlled
by terms of enquiry which -

(1) Stops a hot topic from being
discussed ("can't talk about it, have to wait for the outcome of
the commission of enquiry") which is usually 2, 3 or 4 years and by
that time all the political heat is off.

(2) But more important is they control it
by "terms of reference". An example I like to use is the
Warren Commission enquiring into Kennedy's assassination, and Judge
Warren was asked about something afterwards and asked why didn't you
look into it, "Oh, it wasn't in my terms of reference". He'd
been limited by those that wrote the terms of reference and that was my
experience. One of the first cases I'd been asked to look at and the
ministry said will you look at this, I said "well sure" but
couldn't work with the terms of reference, couldn't provide a proper
answer with restrictions of terms of reference. The Ministry said
"sorry, that's what you've got to work with", so Tim Ball
dropped the job.

An investigation becomes limited by those
who write the terms of reference." This had been Tim Ball's
experience, that the terms of reference can become meaningless, and so
limiting that he was unable to work with them.

[36.25] "When they set up the IPCC
Maurice Strong wrote the terms of reference. The 1st term of reference was
the definition of climate change, and he limited it deliberately to human
causes of climate change, which effectively eliminated all the natural
causes and natural variability which is why you don't see them looking at
things like the sun and a whole heap of other issues.

"Limited further in another term of
reference - he set it up into 3 working groups. There was the technical
group 1 the working group which wrote the science report which was 600 of
the 2500 people. The other 1900 were working groups 2 and 3. Now they were
inconsequential because they had to accept the findings of working group 1
which were already limited by their terms of reference. So whatever their
finding was, then working groups 2 and 3 said, right if you're telling us
it is going to warm, then we're taking this as fact, we now look at the
implications of that. And that's where you hear all these stories, the ice
is going to melt, the sea levels are going to rise. So really the majority
of the report and handing to the 1900 other scientists is accepting
without question the findings of the 1st group.

Now Strong restricted it even more because
they then said this report is not to be used for policy, but then they set
up the summary for policy makers - an absolute contradiction of that. The
summary for policy makers is written by a completely separate group and
then they write it independent of the science report. The science report
is finished and set aside. The summary for policy makers is written and
given out to the media, eg the last report, the 4th assessment report came
out in 2007, the summary for policy makers was written in April, the
science report wasn't released until November. But the rules, the terms of
reference that Strong wrote said that the summary for policy makers goes
back to the science report people and says "make sure your science
report agrees with what we've put in the summary". So its like the
executive of a company writing the summary of a report and then telling
the employees to find the facts to agree with the summary. Its the most
unbelievable process you can imagine. So its in those terms of reference
through the IPCC that not only have you effectively eliminated most of the
major causes of climate change, the natural variability and of course if
you think about it, unless you know how much natural variability there is,
how much natural climate change there is, and what are the fundamental
causes of that, you can't possibly identify that fractional part which may
be due to humans. But that's precisely what they're doing and so that's
why things appear so illogical and why so much is left out of the IPCC
report, which has become the authority." [40.00]

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's own figures expose its
fraud at the core of unfounded climate alarm and government restrictions and
taxes.

Malcolm
Roberts joins us to share the submission of a report he has compiled on the
CSIRO and its involvement in the Climate Change debate. This report was prepared
at the invitation of Steve Austin, host on ABC-Radio 612 Brisbane. Steve Austin
invited a management consultant’s review of CSIRO’s document entitled
"The Science of Tackling Climate Change."

My brief from Steve Austin is to, quote: “Please read through the
Australian scientific paper and identify where you believe the CSIRO data has
been falsified or is wrong.”

Together we look at the falsities, misrepresentations, consequences and some
solutions that Australians are confronted with as a result of Scientific
corruption. For further information including appendices are available at
Malcolm's website: www.conscious.com.au

Nature alone controls the air's CO2 levels. Total human
production is one quarter of just the variation in Nature's production.
Despite continuous human CO2 production, every year during the
southern hemisphere winter Nature reduces Earth's global CO2
levels;

The absorption of human and industrial CO2 into oceans and
plants is the same as for CO2 produced by Nature;

Residence time for CO2 is only 5 to 7 years. It is then
recycled back into sinks such as plants, oceans and soils. Some studies show
recycle time is only 12 months;

UN IPCC data on the air's carbon dioxide (CO2) levels show
carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature, not a cause. This is true
for every period in Earth's history and over every duration;

Carbon dioxide is a natural trace gas essential for all life on Earth.
With Nature annually producing 97% of all CO2, CO2 is
obviously not a pollutant;

There has been no increase in global atmospheric temperature since 1998. 'Global
warming' is not happening;

The UN's climate body downplays satellite and weather balloon data and
prefers ground-based temperature measurements known to be corrupted;

Ocean temperatures have been flat or slightly cooling since 2003;

Oceans are alkaline. Earth's oceans thrived for extensive periods with the
air's CO2 20 times that of today. Anyway, when oceans warm they
release CO2 into the atmosphere;

Australia's sea levels during the last 15 years have risen only 0.3 mm per
year. In 100 years that will be just over one inch. The most extensive study
measuring Pacific island sea levels shows no rise since measurements began
in 1992. Sea level projections by the government and its taxpayer funded
Climate Commission rely on unvalidated computer models themselves relying on
temperature guesses proven wrong;

There has been no increase in storm activity or strength. In falsely
claiming increased storms, the UN IPCC's chairman contradicted and overrode
the IPCC's storm expert, Chris Landsea. In protest, Landsea resigned from
the UN IPCC;

"The media portrays climate scientists as having delivered a final
verdict on global warming.

They haven’t.

There remain some holdouts who say this consensus is little more than
conformity to a politically correct idea. Perhaps even more surprising is that a
few of these global-warming sceptics are actually respected!

No matter where you stand on this debate, you should know who the major
sceptics are and what they think.

Physicist Freeman Dyson has been a giant in his field for
decades. But the British-born, Princeton-based professor has gained notoriety
for his 'heretical' views on climate change. While he does acknowledge the
mechanism by which man-made greenhouse gasses can influence the climate, he
claims current models are way too simplistic to capture what's really going on
in the real world. In March, he was featured in the NYT
Magazine for his controversial views.

Bjorn Lomborg is a Danish-based scientist, famous for his
book The sceptical Environmentalist. Like Dyson, he's not an outright
denier, but rather he thinks the current approach to global warming is misguided
and that the costs of drastic, short-term action are too high. Instead, he
thinks we should focus on becoming more adaptable, while putting more effort
into such real-world tragedies as AIDS and malaria.

Myron Ebell may be enemy #1 to the current climate change
community. Ebell works for the free-market thinktank Competitive Enterprise
Institute and, according to his own bio, has been called a climate 'criminal'
and a leading pusher of misleading ideas.

Japanese scientist Kiminori Itoh is the author of Lies
and Traps in the Global Warming Affair. Like many others, Itoh does not
reject the notion of global warming entirely, but instead claims that the causes
are far more complex than the anti-carbon crowd would have you believe. You can
read an introduction to his views here at Climate
Science.

Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winner in physics, isn't a
thought leader, per se, in the climate sceptics scene -- but the mere fact that
he has come out as being a sceptic and has a Nobel Prize makes him important.
His big beef is that climate change orthodoxy has become a 'new religion' for
scientists, and that the data isn't nearly as compelling as it should be to get
this kind of conformity.

Will Happer is another, highly-respected physicist out of
Princeton who compares the anti-CO2 crowd to the prohibitionists prior to the
passage of the 18th Amendment. While he does acknowledge long-term warming, he
thinks the influence of CO2 is vastly overstated, and that the benefits of a
modest reduction in it will be negligible.

The earth's climate really is strongly affected
by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which
makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth
would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at
least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon
dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community
that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small
increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional
increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already
have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared
radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head
when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a
windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC
thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.

Alan Carlin is an EPA economist who wrote a
paper calling global warming a 'hoax.' It's not really important what he said or
what he believed or even whether his argument makes any sense at all. What's
important is that he's become a right-wing celebrity over the belief that he was
censored
by the EPA for being a heretic (hence getting to appear on Glenn Beck)

Patrick Michaels is a CATO scholar and a GMU
professor who's widely quoted as a global warming sceptic. His basic belief is
that we're in a long-term warming trend and that Carbon Dioxoide has got little
to do with it, as each additional greenhouse gas molecule has less and less of
an effect."

"Hidden
power, secrets, coverups, corruption ...you think you know the whole
story?
...Think again!! I've been governor, a Navy seal, a fighter ...
I've heard things that will blow your mind,
and now I think its time you get the
whole story."

Global warming, the most
serious threat to our planet or a plot to cheat, extort and control you
and everyone else. ... "The greatest control over mankind that
we've ever seen."

"Sea Level Rise Because
the sea level rise is very low, averaging 0.0003 metres per annum* for the
Australian continent (Mitchell, 2002), the 15 to 19 years of readings
available from Queensland tidal stations is not sufficient to calculate a
reasonable estimate of sea level change. Accordingly an adjustment of 0.0003
metres per annum is made to the mean sea level within the tidal reference
frame. The allowance is been calculated from the central date of the
observation period at each station to the central date of the tidal datum
epoch (31 December 2001)."

* * *

* 0.0003 metres per annum = 0.03cm
or 0.3mm per annum

Fmr.
Thatcher advisor Lord Monckton to pursue fraud charges against Climategate
scientists: Will present to police the case for 'numerous specific instances
of scientific or economic fraud'Visit
Site

Monckton: 'I have begun drafting a memorandum for prosecuting
authorities...to establish...the existence of numerous specific instances of
scientific or economic fraud in relation to the official 'global warming'
storyline...they will act, for that is what the law requires them to do'

Lord
Monckton: Shut Down The UN, Arrest The Warmist Criminals

Anti-climate cult
crusader calls for world to rise up against communistic killers behind global
warming fraud

Appearing on The Alex Jones Show yesterday, Lord Christopher
Monckton went further than ever before in his vehement opposition to the
elitists running the climate change scam, calling for the UN to be shut down and
for fraudulent peddlers of global warming propaganda like Al Gore to be arrested
and criminally prosecuted.

Monckton said that those who are threatening to shut down
economies, bankrupt nations, and deepen the problems of the third world by
implementing draconian policies in the name of global warming should be
indicted, prosecuted and imprisoned “for a very long time”.

“The fraudsters and racketeers from Al Gore to the people
at the University of East Anglia who have been making their fortune at the
expense of taxpayers and the little guy,” should be criminally charged, said
Monckton, in response to the climategate scandal.

“We the people have got to rise up worldwide, found a party
in every country which stands for freedom and make sure we fight this
bureaucratic communistic world government monster to a standstill – they shall
not pass,” he added.

Monckton said that the United Nations should be “closed
down,” adding that he talked to a senior UN ambassador in Canada who told him
that he no longer saw any purpose in the UN and it exists “only to enrich
itself at the expense of the nations it claims to serve, it’s time it was
brought to an end.”

“We would all save billions if we shut down the UN and just
about all of its hideous bureaucracy,” said Monckton.

Lord Monckton emphasized how the emails released as a result
of climategate prove that global warming alarmism was still prevalent in public
but behind closed doors, warmist scientist are admitting that the “deniers”
as they label people like Monckton are correct.

“Publicly they’re saying the science is settled, we’re
all doomed unless you close down the economies of the west, whereas privately
they’re saying to each other ‘we’ve got it wrong, none of this adds up and
it’s a travesty that we can’t explain it’.”

Monckton also slammed Obama’s science czar John P. Holdren,
who in his 1977 book Ecoscience called for draconian population measures to be
enforced by a “planetary regime” in the name of saving the earth, as an
“openly admitted communist”.

Monckton pointed out how Holdren had been once of the most
prominent alarmists in the 70’s warning about the onset of rapid “global
cooling”.

“Now with seamless mendacity he says that what we’re now
facing is global warming,” said Monckton.

“How can anyone like Holdren stand up with a straight face
and expect anyone to believe it,” he added.

Monckton said that the agenda behind the global warming
movement was to set up a communistic world government which will be run by
people who “do not care how many people they kill with their policies” and
that their goal is to “do away with democracy forever by stealth using the
excuse to save the planet.”

Monckton said that the people running the scam had a
“deliberate desire to control population by killing people in large numbers
deliberately if necessary.”

The former advisor to Margaret Thatcher said that the
warmists were sounding more and more desperate and knew that they had been
rumbled as a result of climategate, which would only make it more urgent for
them to try and force through a binding treaty in Copenhagen.

Monckton said that the answer to combating the move towards
neo-feudalism and global government was to form a worldwide “freedom party”
that would operate nationally in every country in order to defend freedom,
democracy and prosperity while routing out every aspect of the communistic
takeover.

“Every time these people try to take it away, we in the
freedom party will stop them, and I think now is the time,” said Monckton.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't
exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and
see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first
Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in
climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of
climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even
though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London,
England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For
some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after
all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news
in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when
scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that
humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the
Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human
contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception
in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of
dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with
no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about
spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change
almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position
while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated
pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with
governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and
as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we
are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael,
Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to
believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago,
that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a
cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important
social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten
thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of
ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our
species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global
cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me
stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed
since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that
has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within
natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But
there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the
University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two
climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early
1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not
a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and
Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle
before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now
indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer
personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in
my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people
choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in
University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are
supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer
defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say
what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that
universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This
becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from
governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian
environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie.
Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So
if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only
truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a
debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply.
They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case,
they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become.
Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent
myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael
Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest
book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising
detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined
environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He
is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned
for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is
also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at
the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently
speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by
humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand
the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in
his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist
makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as
the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an
atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then
theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the
temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had
started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was
reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares
to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when
in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening
levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all
the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is
effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even
though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially
the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to
question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet.
Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make
calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have
no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an
attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much
misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron
Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political
science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced
by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an
assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly
publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there
was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy.
You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask
the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia
and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a
difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is
the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right
direction.

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change
have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific
community.

They say the debate on global warming has been
"hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and
environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental
impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University
of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising
concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out,
he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into
careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all
scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with
all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really
nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming
Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory
of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing
alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary -
recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their
funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry
stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence
even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said:
"The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is
ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro
managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said:
"Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who
disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

The Birth of the
'Global Warming' Hoax

Nov. 27, 2009 (EIRNS)—EIR
published in its June
8, 2007 issue, this groundbreaking
article exposing how the fraudulent "global warming" propaganda
drive, now causing such an uproar around the Copenhagen Summit, was initiated
by Malthusian fanatics. The article revealed the stated intention of these
fanatics: to prevent Third World development, because, they claimed, the
additional people this development would produce, would pose a threat to the
environment. A PDF version of this article, suitable for printing, can be seen
here.

Whether you want to believe it or not, there exists ample evidence of massive
tampering with the natural weather patterns on planet earth by the
military/industrial complex to further their own evil agendas. This includes
precipitation deluge/ denail to either create too much rain or destroy crops
through droughts. Either method is obviously catastrophic.

There is no credible
proof global warming is causing this as thousands of highly intelligent,
scientists with common sense have proven time and again. I have checked solar
flare data, and it is not a factor. So one can deduce that it is most likely
manmade in origin and its effects have been deadly. Watch this fall when the
hurricane season starts, I find it amazing the "experts" are already
calling this season a whopper before it even starts, when computer models can't
even predict a hailstorm let alone a Cat 5 hurricane until its on top of you.
Even with favorable conditions for hurricanes the models are sketchy at best.

I hope you find the above data informative, as the earth's weather patterns
are a "chaotic" system that will seek its own equilibrium if left
alone. But if you introduce large changes in that system, other parts of the
world will "equalise" that disturbance with often catastrophic
effects. By the way, have you noticed the earthquakes in California, and up the
west coast? Not all of these are natural in origin, as the USGS does not report
all earthquakes for some strange reason.

The Russians have had Tesla/Scalar
weapons for decades. Prove me wrong!

ELF,
Scalar Waves, Weather Modifications. Top Secret Report SCELF 1201.This is a continuation of Dr. Coleman’s work on
Russia’s weather modifications and scalar wave weapons of war which he began
in 1969. His first work was published in 1984. Dr. Coleman owes much of his
knowledge of this comprehensive subject to the late Professor Gurvich of
Russia’s Lebedev Institute of Moscow who provided a great deal of material on
Russia’s capability in these fields.

Global
Warming: Fact or Fiction?It seems like we have heard this refrain before. Yes
indeed, three times before, dressed up in other slogans with different players,
but the same familiar message. In this latest version we see many of the slogans
used by the anti-nuclear power station environmentalists of the 60s and 70s
reappearing. This work lays bare the “Cold Facts” about “Global
Warming.” It is not to be missed.

El
Niño is Man Made.One of the many masterly investigative reports for which
Dr. Coleman is well known. It reveals that a US Government agency commissioned a
prestigious "think tank" to come up with El Niño. Explains how it is
part of the Club of Rome's genocidal Global 2000 program. Once you read this
well-researched report, you will have no doubt that the title is justified.

The
Environmentalist Cult. (3 parts)This could be the subject of a great book as it is packed
with information reaching far beyond limits indicated by the title.

Metaphysics,
Mind Control, ELF Transmissions & Weather Modifications.Dr. Coleman was the FIRST to deal comprehensively with
this new and hitherto unexplored development. Written ten years before HAARP,
this monograph was one of more than 500 "FIRST" reports by Dr.
Coleman. Our weather and our minds are being controlled and Dr. Coleman exposed
it first in 1969, updated it in 1972, and again in 1984 and 1991. The original
information is as current now as when it was first written almost 34 years ago!

Climate change science being stifled by NSW Labor
bureaucrats

"SENIOR bureaucrats in the state
government's environment department have routinely stopped publishing
scientific papers which challenge the federal government's claims of sea level
rises threatening Australia's coastline, a former senior public servant said
yesterday.

Doug Lord helped prepare six scientific papers
which examined 120 years of tidal data from a gauge at Fort Denison in Sydney
Harbour.

The tide data revealed sea levels were rising
at a rate of about 1mm a year or less - and the rise was not accelerating but
was constant.

"The tidal data we found would mean sea
levels would rise by about 100mm by the end of the century," Mr Lord said
yesterday.

"However the (federal) government
benchmark which drives their climate change policy is that sea levels are
expected to rise by 900mm by the end of the century and the rate of rise is
accelerating."

Mr Lord, who has 35 years experience in coastal
engineering, said senior bureaucrats within the then Department of Environment
Climate Change and Water had rejected or stopped publication of five papers
between late 2009 and September this year."

Tasmanian Sea Levels: The
`Isle of the Dead'
Revisited

by John
L. Daly2nd February 2003

Conclusion

"Pugh et al. reported
at both at the lecture and in their paper at how well their scenario fitted
the IPCC claim of 10-20 cm global sea level rise during the 20th century.
However, that IPCC claim is contradicted by tide gauge data from around the
Australian coast that observed sea level rise has been less than a
tenth of that claimed by the IPCC [13]."

Garnaut Review 2011

In November 2010, Ross Garnaut was commissioned by the
Australian Government to provide an independent update to his 2008 Climate
Change Review. Professor Garnaut's book, The Garnaut Review 2011:
Australia in the Global Response to Climate Change, is the final report
of the update.

Professor
Garnaut strongly objected to our mentioning in this report that he also serves
as director of the Ok Tedi gold and copper mine in western PNG, which we
described as infamous for its environmental record.

Professor Garnaut is also an eminent
Australian economist, perhaps best known as the head of the Rudd government's
Climate Change Review Panel recommending serious reduction targets for
greenhouse gas emissions.

KERRY
O’BRIEN, PRESENTER: Last Thursday we presented a story highlighting concerns
in some quarters over the practice by Australian mining companies in Papua New
Guinea of just discharging mine waste and chemically processed tailings deep
into the ocean.

A significant element of those expressed concerns related to the so-called deep
sea tailings 'placement' by one of the world's biggest gold mines, located on
Lihir Island off Papua New Guinea's north coast.

Until this week when it merged with another Australian mining company, Newcrest,
the mine was operated by Lihir Gold Limited whose founding chairman over 15
years has been Professor Ross Garnaut.

Links

The
Australian Climate Sceptics -
Exposing the flaws in the greatest hoax inflicted on the human race.